This week was the first time I have seen someone selling Mahara in action. Indeed it is the first time I have seen a Mahara site. Well of course I have to recognise the benefits of being able to link into Moodle, which is being used by many institutions in the UK but nobody can claim that it looks great.
Anyway here is the sales pitch. Can you really thrust proprietary software when it is quite possible that compnay's owning that software will be taken over, the implication being that of course that software will disappear, leaving the learning provider high and try. Instead you can have access to open source software which you can be assured will be always be there. No mention what state that software will be in nor how stable it is you can just have the reassurance it will be there.
You can of course if you wish pay a company like the one the salesperson was representing to help implement the software and of course if you need any other services like hosting and support we will of course be happy to oblige albeit at a fee.
Seems that institutions will swopping the so called dependence on a company where there is some guarantees on the security and availability of software with a 'relationship' with another company that will be using software over which there is ultimately little control apart from the fact you know it is 'out there' which apparently better...still struggling to see how.
Showing posts with label open source. Show all posts
Showing posts with label open source. Show all posts
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Open does not mean Free
It is now notable how many times that the Open source 'debate' comes up in discussion as those faced with making decisions about resources grapple with what choice to make about software. Open and free? almost too good to be true so what's the catch?
Well it's not free. The code might be but someone has to work out how to use it. It is just that you swop the dependance on a software house to dependance on the people who develop the code for you. There are lots of companies making good money from deploying and maintaining open source software.
It is a challenge to this company to ensure that all the various pieces of code in our core platform all work effectively work together. No matter how well we test and plan there are sometimes those unseen consequences from implementing one change on other parts of our solutions. Last week it was the new pivot table for reporting impacting on the editor tool we use but only for those using Firefox and Safari.
Fortunately it was a quick fix because we work within a secure and a restricted environment with respect to the code we use. It is difficult to imagine the challenges, where there is the possibility that the code that you have grabbed from a more 'open' environment, you then subsequently discover has changed when you need to make a fix.
It is not surprising that there is a growing trend of organisations who 'purchase' the creation of a solution using open source software are then reluctant to make it available to others.
We support the principles that underlie the Open source movement and our customers frequently share and benefit from changes to our core NOW.net platform that others have requested and funded. However we also recognise that our customers require quaranteed reliability and stability which is why we will continue to be .net and meet that relatively small cost.
Well it's not free. The code might be but someone has to work out how to use it. It is just that you swop the dependance on a software house to dependance on the people who develop the code for you. There are lots of companies making good money from deploying and maintaining open source software.
It is a challenge to this company to ensure that all the various pieces of code in our core platform all work effectively work together. No matter how well we test and plan there are sometimes those unseen consequences from implementing one change on other parts of our solutions. Last week it was the new pivot table for reporting impacting on the editor tool we use but only for those using Firefox and Safari.
Fortunately it was a quick fix because we work within a secure and a restricted environment with respect to the code we use. It is difficult to imagine the challenges, where there is the possibility that the code that you have grabbed from a more 'open' environment, you then subsequently discover has changed when you need to make a fix.
It is not surprising that there is a growing trend of organisations who 'purchase' the creation of a solution using open source software are then reluctant to make it available to others.
We support the principles that underlie the Open source movement and our customers frequently share and benefit from changes to our core NOW.net platform that others have requested and funded. However we also recognise that our customers require quaranteed reliability and stability which is why we will continue to be .net and meet that relatively small cost.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
A 'proper' e-portfolio???
I recently found an interesting entry in Derrin Kent's blog http://derrin.biz/?p=88 What is Mahara (versus Paperfree, eNVQ, et.al.)? NVQnow is presumably in the list of et.als.
It is thoughtful contribution designed to help people faced with the decision about whether they should 'buy' one of the current solutions that are in the market, or alternatively use on of the 'Build your own kits' available through open source software like Mahara.
Clearly I need to declare an interest at this point as a provider of one of the solutions however I would also want to assert that we embrace many of the principles that underpin the Open Source movement. The users of our software all become members of the NOW.net community which enables them to have access to any developments of and enhancement to our core platform usually at little or no cost to themselves.
We therefore come to the debate as interested contributors rather than people who just wish to defend our position.
In his blog Derrin makes the bold declaration that TDM is 'now running an adaptation of Mahara (using Moodle and a special patch....which allows training providers (colleges or independent) of Evidence-Based Qualifications to create NVQ/QCF (or similar) template "pages" into which candidates can submit evidence for QCF units (of NVQs).'
There are other features like to the ability to add more content to enable the learner to 'show-off' their extended and reflective learning; submit pages for recording outcomes in Moodle's gradebook; make those pages available for assessment and allow learners to form '"walled garden" communities of practice'.
The blog finishes with an important reflection on who owns the e-portfolio. Clearly in Derrin's view it is key that the e-portfolio is owned by the individual. Whilst we recognise that is desirable, we have had to grapple with the notion of how can that work fully in an environment, such as the one created by QCA and implemented by awarding bodies, where quite rightly there are clear rules about who is allowed to do what and when in relation to the assessing and verification of evidence. In our experience awarding body endorsement of e-portfolios is not a random exercise, it is one that is based on their recognition that an e-portfolio delivers a secure and appropriate audit trail.
There are also some other real challenges to the open source approach that Derrin alludes to by implication if not explicably. Firstly although it is open source this does not mean it is free, something he tacitly acknowledges 'it is free of cost for anyone who has the skill to implement it...and we offer very reasonably-priced, zero vendor lock-in support services (hosting, configuration, end-user training, consultancy, etc.) for those who don't.'
Anyone who has been involved in assessment knows it is a movable feast and that any system that is designed to reflect best assessment practice has to be constantly evolved and changed. It is good that special patches have now been created but whose responsibility is to maintain and change these? Furthermore what are the guarantees that the core code will not be changed in a way that affects it's capacity to deal with any new changes in assessment.
It is indeed arguable that the principles that underpin the development of open source code are counter intuitive to the regulatory environment that is required for assessment that can be fully quality assured. When we have been involved in co-operative ventures with company's that use open source software, their reluctance to produce the sort of admin tool that enables us to control who does what using groups, roles and permissions is notable. The same tools that we use to keep the user experience as simple as possible.
This is where we again we agree with Derrin for we are as focused on the individual as he is. What matters however is that the user experiences an e-portfolio that is both fully accessible and meets their needs.
It is thoughtful contribution designed to help people faced with the decision about whether they should 'buy' one of the current solutions that are in the market, or alternatively use on of the 'Build your own kits' available through open source software like Mahara.
Clearly I need to declare an interest at this point as a provider of one of the solutions however I would also want to assert that we embrace many of the principles that underpin the Open Source movement. The users of our software all become members of the NOW.net community which enables them to have access to any developments of and enhancement to our core platform usually at little or no cost to themselves.
We therefore come to the debate as interested contributors rather than people who just wish to defend our position.
In his blog Derrin makes the bold declaration that TDM is 'now running an adaptation of Mahara (using Moodle and a special patch....which allows training providers (colleges or independent) of Evidence-Based Qualifications to create NVQ/QCF (or similar) template "pages" into which candidates can submit evidence for QCF units (of NVQs).'
There are other features like to the ability to add more content to enable the learner to 'show-off' their extended and reflective learning; submit pages for recording outcomes in Moodle's gradebook; make those pages available for assessment and allow learners to form '"walled garden" communities of practice'.
The blog finishes with an important reflection on who owns the e-portfolio. Clearly in Derrin's view it is key that the e-portfolio is owned by the individual. Whilst we recognise that is desirable, we have had to grapple with the notion of how can that work fully in an environment, such as the one created by QCA and implemented by awarding bodies, where quite rightly there are clear rules about who is allowed to do what and when in relation to the assessing and verification of evidence. In our experience awarding body endorsement of e-portfolios is not a random exercise, it is one that is based on their recognition that an e-portfolio delivers a secure and appropriate audit trail.
There are also some other real challenges to the open source approach that Derrin alludes to by implication if not explicably. Firstly although it is open source this does not mean it is free, something he tacitly acknowledges 'it is free of cost for anyone who has the skill to implement it...and we offer very reasonably-priced, zero vendor lock-in support services (hosting, configuration, end-user training, consultancy, etc.) for those who don't.'
Anyone who has been involved in assessment knows it is a movable feast and that any system that is designed to reflect best assessment practice has to be constantly evolved and changed. It is good that special patches have now been created but whose responsibility is to maintain and change these? Furthermore what are the guarantees that the core code will not be changed in a way that affects it's capacity to deal with any new changes in assessment.
It is indeed arguable that the principles that underpin the development of open source code are counter intuitive to the regulatory environment that is required for assessment that can be fully quality assured. When we have been involved in co-operative ventures with company's that use open source software, their reluctance to produce the sort of admin tool that enables us to control who does what using groups, roles and permissions is notable. The same tools that we use to keep the user experience as simple as possible.
This is where we again we agree with Derrin for we are as focused on the individual as he is. What matters however is that the user experiences an e-portfolio that is both fully accessible and meets their needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
